JeffreyG wrote in post #18573155I've seen a credible post at FM suggesting that the AF will be a lot more like the A7R3 than the A9, based on the way the data is read off the sensor. It's the same reason this will band in some light using silent shutter, just like the A7r3 does.

Not that this is bad....a $2000 camera that can perform like a low resolution (and worse EVF) version of the A7r3 is going to be wildly popular.

Anyway, let's check in on how the FF MILC development is coming along at Canon........<<crickets>>

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18573160While I'm glad for future A7III users, seeing this is pretty frustrating to me. That nine months ago I spent over twice this on a camera body that is basically the same minus some pixels in the EVF and back screen.

Of course I know there is more than that, but on paper let's look at our $2500 difference

More EVF and Monitor pixels for the a9.

20fps vs. 10 fps (but if the 10fps is mechanical on the a7iii it has an advantage over the a9)

no blackout on the a9

Hopefully better AF on the a9, but the a7iii has the same amount of phase detection points and far more contrast points than the a9. Basically the a7iii appears to have the a9 and a7Riii AF systems combined (only accounting for points).

Stacked sensor vs. BSI sensor. Who knows if this will make a difference in real world shooting.

Are those things above worth $2500? Because those are the only differences that I can tell.

You do get advantages over the a9 while saving $2500.

a7iii 425 contrast detection points vs. a9 25

S-Log vs. No S-Log on a9

Pixel shift mode vs. none on a9

People complain about Canon removing features to protect the flagship, and they certainly are guilty of that. They remove TOO MANY features, but you have to protect your flagship somehow. Sony has basically released three cameras in a nine month period (I know the a7iii isn't out yet) ranging from $2000-$4500 that have minimal real world differences. The biggest difference is going to be the 42MP sensor on the A7Riii.

It honestly makes me feel like I wasted a ton of money on the a9. Feels like Sony is not rewarding those who bought their "first of it's kind" flagship, but it feels more like they're laughing at our stupidity. Like they're saying, "could've waited 9 months and basically gotten the a9 for over half off. oh well, thanks for your money."

well we cant have it both ways..

i hear you , but we know that performance of camera doesn't directly relate to dollars spent .. the more you spend the lesser the returns..and , the first adopters of new tech always get the raw end for being the first to enjoy.. i know , not words of consolation .. but it is what it is

also we know that sony cameras , because they are always being updated don't hold value ..although i see canon cameras aren't holding the same like they used to either ..

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18573160While I'm glad for future A7III users, seeing this is pretty frustrating to me. That nine months ago I spent over twice this on a camera body that is basically the same minus some pixels in the EVF and back screen.

Of course I know there is more than that, but on paper let's look at our $2500 difference

More EVF and Monitor pixels for the a9.

20fps vs. 10 fps (but if the 10fps is mechanical on the a7iii it has an advantage over the a9)

no blackout on the a9

Extra settings knobs on the a9

Hopefully better AF on the a9, but the a7iii has the same amount of phase detection points and far more contrast points than the a9. Basically the a7iii appears to have the a9 and a7Riii AF systems combined (only accounting for points).

Stacked sensor vs. BSI sensor. Who knows if this will make a difference in real world shooting.

Are those things above worth $2500? Because those are the only differences that I can tell.

You do get advantages over the a9 while saving $2500.

a7iii 425 contrast detection points vs. a9 25

S-Log vs. No S-Log on a9

Pixel shift mode vs. none on a9

People complain about Canon removing features to protect the flagship, and they certainly are guilty of that. They remove TOO MANY features, but you have to protect your flagship somehow. Sony has basically released three cameras in a nine month period (I know the a7iii isn't out yet) ranging from $2000-$4500 that have minimal real world differences. The biggest difference is going to be the 42MP sensor on the A7Riii.

It honestly makes me feel like I wasted a ton of money on the a9. Feels like Sony is not rewarding those who bought their "first of it's kind" flagship, but it feels more like they're laughing at our stupidity. Like they're saying, "could've waited 9 months and basically gotten the a9 for over half off. oh well, thanks for your money."

I feel your pain man. I took a lesser hit and sold the a9 because I saw the writing on the wall last fall....but I had a bunch of weddings I needed to shoot last summer/fall and the a9 was the best tool for the job at the time.

It's a similar story in Canon too though.. The 5div shares a lot with the 1dxii including its AF system. It just kinda sucked in the Sony side of things because there was no real alternative to the a9 at that time because this whole system is so new.

Jarvis another difference is the buffer. Weather sealing might be yet another if that matters.For real world difference I still don't think one would shoot hummingbirds or swinging golf clubs in e-shutter unlesson a9; mechanical would still have to be applied here or the warping (can't remember the real term) would occur to the cluband the bierd wings would look wierd.

mystik610 wrote in post #18573169I feel your pain man. I took a lesser hit and sold the a9 because I saw the writing on the wall last fall....but I had a bunch of weddings I needed to shoot last summer/fall and the a9 was the best tool for the job at the time.

It's a similar story in Canon too though.. The 5div shares a lot with the 1dxii including its AF system. It just kinda sucked in the Sony side of things because there was no real alternative to the a9 at that time because this whole system is so new.

Haha! Carlo I feel like the odd man out still loving the a9 Looking forward to Eriets feelings about the matter.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18573176Haha! Carlo I feel like the odd man out still loving the a9 Looking forward to Eriets feelings about the matter.

I still love the A9, but it feels like I bought a BMW M5 only to have the x5 come out a few months later with 50 less horse power and a few less pixels on the nav screen, yet I still spent $40k more on it.

ccp900 wrote in post #18572490has anyone created a very lightweight travel kit using the TAP

thinking something like thisLeica wateCV 40 1.4Jupiter 11A or even the Contax G 90 (will have its on TAP though)

you'll still have AF if you want to or go dull manual

The Wate is a great optic and ofcourse it sooo tiny compared to other lenses in that focal range. I purchased one a couple of years ago for use on my A7R2, it's really one of the few Leica M wides that work reasonably well on Sony bodies. The lens is really sharp at 16mm-18mm less so at 21. It's biggest drawback is the corner sharpness, they really only become acceptable at F8 for lanscape work which is ok for that type of work. I just recently sold my copy, just too much money invested in a lens that I was using exclusively at 16mm F8.

rantercsr wrote in post #18573182yeah .. i think there are few on this sony thread that can use the A9 for what it was built for like MedMan can

Randall I found on this last trip that the Riii at 8 fps in mechanical is OK for BIF but truthfully there were many times where the focus acquisition was not fast enough and shots were missed and/or the eye was just a bit soft. In my world of shooting often I have only a split second to get on the bird and the camera to nab and track. The Riii just doesn't compare to the a9 for that.

I still feel the a9 was a one off product but one I'm lucky to get to play with.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18572924Well the sigma lenses were a disappointment. I was hoping for a mirrorless design and smaller lenses and what we got are lenses that are larger than their dslr counterparts. Zero GAS on this at the moment. Price and performance would have to be really good to tempt me I think

I'm actually a little interested in the 105, but I'm guessing it's going to be a beast, likely as heavy as the 135 1.8. I purchased the 135 1.8 a while back to test against my Zeiss 135 APO and I recently sold the Zeiss, the Sigma is a fantastic optic, equally as good as the Zeiss based on my testing, the only drawback ofcourse is that it requires the use of an adapter so native mount versions of these lenses are in my book better than the current adapted versions.

Ofcourse timing is everything, I recently sold a number of lenses including the Leica 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar which freed up a significant amount of funds so I have been adding Sony native mount AF zooms, 12-24 G, 24-70 GM, 16-35 GM and the 85 GM to my kit so GAS money is now depleted

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is beniciovin679 guests, 275 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.